Cheryl Ward - Page 4

                                        - 3 -                                         
          filed a Form 656, Offer in Compromise (OIC), based on promotion             
          of effective tax administration, for 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and            
          2003.  Petitioner offered to settle her outstanding tax                     
          liabilities, totaling approximately $40,000, for $1,000.                    
               Petitioner’s case was assigned to Appeals Officer Celia                
          Cleveland (AO Cleveland).  AO Cleveland conducted the collection            
          due process hearing with petitioner and her representative via              
          numerous telephone conversations and written correspondence.                
          During the hearing, petitioner did not challenge the existence or           
          amount of the underlying tax liability for 1999 or 2000.                    
               Based on the documentation submitted by petitioner, AO                 
          Cleveland determined that petitioner’s OIC did not qualify for              
          consideration as an offer based on promotion of effective tax               
          administration.  Petitioner did not offer any other collection              
          alternatives other than the OIC.  AO Cleveland reviewed                     
          petitioner’s administrative file and transcripts for the years in           
          issue, and she verified that all applicable laws and                        
          administrative procedures had been met.                                     
               On July 22, 2005, the Appeals Office issued to petitioner a            
          Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under               
          Section 6320 for 1999 and 2000 (notice of determination),                   
          determining that respondent’s filing of the tax lien was proper             
          and indicating that petitioner’s OIC was rejected.  The                     
          attachment to the notice of determination notes that petitioner             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011